Intertemporal portfolio choice

Last updated December 13, 2019

Intertemporal portfolio choice is the process of allocating one's investable wealth to various assets, especially financial assets, repeatedly over time, in such a way as to optimize some criterion. The set of asset proportions at any time defines a portfolio. Since the returns on almost all assets are not fully predictable, the criterion has to take financial risk into account. Typically the criterion is the expected value of some concave function of the value of the portfolio after a certain number of time periods—that is, the expected utility of final wealth. Alternatively, it may be a function of the various levels of goods and services consumption that are attained by withdrawing some funds from the portfolio after each time period.

Discrete time

Time-independent decisions

In a general context the optimal portfolio allocation in any time period after the first will depend on the amount of wealth that results from the previous period's portfolio, which depends on the asset returns that occurred in the previous period as well as that period's portfolio size and allocation, the latter having depended in turn on the amount of wealth resulting from the portfolio of the period before that, etc. However, under certain circumstances the optimal portfolio decisions can be arrived at in a way that is separated in time, so that the shares of wealth placed in particular assets depend only on the stochastic asset return distributions of that particular period.

Log utility

If the investor's utility function is the risk averse log utility function of final wealth $W_{T},$

{\text{Utility}}=\ln W_{T},

then decisions are intertemporally separate.^[1] Let initial wealth (the amount that is investable in the initial period) be $W_{0}$ and let the stochastic portfolio return in any period (the imperfectly predictable amount that the average dollar in the portfolio grows or shrinks to in a given period t) be $R_{t}.$ $R_{t}$ depends on the portfolio allocation—the fractions $w_{it}$ of current wealth $W_{t-1}$ inherited from the previous period that are allocated at the start of period t to assets i (i=1, ..., n). So:

W_{T}=W_{0}R_{1}R_{2}\cdots R_{T}

where

R_{t}=w_{1t}r_{1t}+w_{2t}r_{2t}+\cdots +w_{nt}r_{nt},

where $r_{it}$ refers to the stochastic return (the imperfectly predictable amount that the average dollar grows to) of asset i for period t, and where the shares $w_{it}$ (i=1, ..., n) are constrained to sum to 1. Taking the log of $W_{T}$ above to express outcome-contingent utility, substituting in for $R_{t}$ for each t, and taking the expected value of the log of $W_{T}$ gives the expected utility expression to be maximized:

\ln[W_{0}]+\sum _{t=1}^{T}{\text{E}}\ln[w_{1t}r_{1t}+w_{2t}r_{2t}+\cdots +w_{nt}r_{nt}].

The terms containing the choice shares $w_{it}$ for differing t are additively separate, giving rise to the result of intertemporal independence of optimal decisions: optimizing for any particular decision period t involves taking the derivatives of one additively separate expression with respect to the various shares, and the first-order conditions for the optimal shares in a particular period do not contain the stochastic return information or the decision information for any other period.

Kelly criterion

The Kelly criterion for intertemporal portfolio choice states that, when asset return distributions are identical in all periods, a particular portfolio replicated each period will outperform all other portfolio sequences in the long run. Here the long run is an arbitrarily large number of time periods such that the distributions of observed outcomes for all assets match their ex ante probability distributions. The Kelly criterion gives rise to the same portfolio decisions as does the maximization of the expected value of the log utility function as described above.

Power utility

Like the log utility function, the power utility function for any value of the power parameter exhibits constant relative risk aversion, a property that tends to cause decisions to scale up proportionately without change as initial wealth increases. The power utility function is

{\text{Utility}}=aW_{T}^{a}

with positive or negative, but non-zero, parameter a < 1. With this utility function instead of the log one, the above analysis leads to the following expected utility expression to be maximized:

a\cdot W_{0}^{a}\cdot {\text{E}}[R_{1}^{a}\cdot R_{2}^{a}\cdots R_{T}^{a}],

where as before

R_{t}=w_{1t}r_{1t}+w_{2t}r_{2t}+\cdots +w_{nt}r_{nt}

for each time period t.

If there is serial independence of the asset returns—that is, if the realization of the return on any asset in any period is not related to the realization of the return on any asset in any other period—then this expected utility expression becomes

a\cdot W_{0}^{a}\cdot {\text{E}}R_{1}^{a}\cdot {\text{E}}R_{2}^{a}\cdots {\text{E}}R_{T}^{a};

maximization of this expected utility expression is equivalent to separate maximization (if a>0) or minimization (if a<0) of each of the terms ${\text{E}}R_{t}^{a}.$ Hence under this condition we again have intertemporal independence of portfolio decisions. Note that the log utility function, unlike the power utility function, did not require the assumption of intertemporal independence of returns to obtain intertemporal independence of portfolio decisions.

HARA utility

Hyperbolic absolute risk aversion (HARA) is a feature of a broad class of von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions for choice under risk, including the log and power utility functions dealt with above. Mossin^[2] showed that under HARA utility, optimal portfolio choice involves partial time-independence of decisions if there is a risk-free asset and there is serial independence of asset returns: to find the optimal current-period portfolio, one needs to know no future distributional information about the asset returns except the future risk-free returns.

Time-dependent decisions

As per the above, the expected utility of final wealth with a power utility function is

a\cdot W_{0}^{a}\cdot {\text{E}}[R_{1}^{a}\cdot R_{2}^{a}\cdots R_{T}^{a}].

If there is not serial independence of returns through time, then the expectations operator cannot be applied separately to the various multiplicative terms. Thus the optimal portfolio for any period will depend on the probability distribution of returns for the various assets contingent on their previous-period realizations, and so cannot be determined in advance.

Moreover, the optimal actions in a particular period will have to be chosen based on knowledge of how decisions will be made in future periods, because the realizations in the present period for the asset returns affect not just the portfolio outcome for the present period, but also the conditional probability distributions for future asset returns and hence future decisions.

These considerations apply to utility functions in general with the exceptions noted previously. In general the expected utility expression to be maximized is

{\text{E}}U(W_{T})={\text{E}}U(W_{0}R_{1}R_{2}\cdots R_{T}),

where U is the utility function.

Dynamic programming

The mathematical method of dealing with this need for current decision-making to take into account future decision-making is dynamic programming. In dynamic programming, the last period decision rule, contingent on available wealth and the realizations of all previous periods' asset returns, is devised in advance; then the next-to-last period's decision rule is devised, taking into account how the results of this period will influence the final period's decisions; and so forth backward in time. This procedure becomes complex very quickly if there are more than a few time periods or more than a few assets.

Dollar cost averaging

Dollar cost averaging is gradual entry into risky assets; it is frequently advocated by investment advisors. As indicated above, it is not confirmed by models with log utility. However, it can emerge from an intertemporal mean-variance model with negative serial correlation of returns.^[3]

Age effects

With HARA utility, asset returns that are independently and identically distributed through time, and a risk-free asset, risky asset proportions are independent of the investor's remaining lifetime.^[1]^:ch.11 Under certain assumptions including exponential utility and a single asset with returns following an ARMA(1,1) process, a necessary but not sufficient condition for increasing conservatism (decreasing holding of the risky asset) over time (which is often advocated by investment advisors) is negative first-order serial correlation, while non-negative first-order serial correlation gives the opposite result of increased risk-taking at later points in time.^[4]

Intertemporal portfolio models in which portfolio choice is conducted jointly with intertemporal labor supply decisions can lead to the age effect of conservatism increasing with age^{[ citation needed ]} as advocated by many investment advisors. This result follows from the fact that risky investments when the investor is young that turn out badly can be reacted to by supplying more labor than anticipated in subsequent time periods to at least partially offset the lost wealth; since an older person with fewer subsequent time periods is less able to offset bad investment returns in this way, it is optimal for an investor to take on less investment risk at an older age.

Continuous time

Robert C. Merton ^[5] showed that in continuous time with hyperbolic absolute risk aversion, with asset returns whose evolution is described by Brownian motion and which are independently and identically distributed through time, and with a risk-free asset, one can obtain an explicit solution for the demand for the unique optimal portfolio, and that demand is linear in initial wealth.

Related Research Articles

In finance, the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) is a model used to determine a theoretically appropriate required rate of return of an asset, to make decisions about adding assets to a well-diversified portfolio.

In economics and finance, risk aversion is the behavior of humans, who, when exposed to uncertainty, attempt to lower that uncertainty. It is the hesitation of a person to agree to a situation with an unknown payoff rather than another situation with a more predictable payoff but possibly lower expected payoff. For example, a risk-averse investor might choose to put their money into a bank account with a low but guaranteed interest rate, rather than into a stock that may have high expected returns, but also involves a chance of losing value.

Intertemporal choice is the process by which people make decisions about what and how much to do at various points in time, when choices at one time influence the possibilities available at other points in time. These choices are influenced by the relative value people assign to two or more payoffs at different points in time. Most choices require decision-makers to trade off costs and benefits at different points in time. These decisions may be about saving, work effort, education, nutrition, exercise, health care and so forth.

The St. Petersburg paradox or St. Petersburg lottery is a paradox related to probability and decision theory in economics. It is based on a particular (theoretical) lottery game that leads to a random variable with infinite expected value but nevertheless seems to be worth only a very small amount to the participants. The St. Petersburg paradox is a situation where a naive decision criterion which takes only the expected value into account predicts a course of action that presumably no actual person would be willing to take. Several resolutions are possible.

In economics, game theory, and decision theory, the expected utility hypothesis—concerning people's preferences with regard to choices that have uncertain outcomes (gambles)⁠—states that the subjective value associated with an individual's gamble is the statistical expectation of that individual's valuations of the outcomes of that gamble, where these valuations may differ from the dollar value of those outcomes. The introduction of St. Petersburg Paradox by Daniel Bernoulli in 1738 is considered the beginnings of the hypothesis. This hypothesis has proven useful to explain some popular choices that seem to contradict the expected value criterion, such as occur in the contexts of gambling and insurance.

In finance, arbitrage pricing theory (APT) is a general theory of asset pricing that holds that the expected return of a financial asset can be modeled as a linear function of various factors or theoretical market indices, where sensitivity to changes in each factor is represented by a factor-specific beta coefficient. The model-derived rate of return will then be used to price the asset correctly—the asset price should equal the expected end of period price discounted at the rate implied by the model. If the price diverges, arbitrage should bring it back into line. The theory was proposed by the economist Stephen Ross in 1976. The linear factor model structure of the APT is used as the basis for many of the commercial risk systems employed by asset managers.

In probability theory and intertemporal portfolio choice, the Kelly criterion, Kelly strategy, Kelly formula, or Kelly bet is a formula for bet sizing that leads almost surely to higher wealth compared to any other strategy in the long run. The Kelly bet size is found by maximizing the expected value of the logarithm of wealth, which is equivalent to maximizing the expected geometric growth rate. The Kelly Criterion is to bet a predetermined fraction of assets, and it can be counterintuitive. It was described by J. L. Kelly, Jr, a researcher at Bell Labs, in 1956. The practical use of the formula has been demonstrated.

Merton's portfolio problem is a well known problem in continuous-time finance and in particular intertemporal portfolio choice. An investor must choose how much to consume and must allocate his wealth between stocks and a risk-free asset so as to maximize expected utility. The problem was formulated and solved by Robert C. Merton in 1969 both for finite lifetimes and for the infinite case. Research has continued to extend and generalize the model to include factors like transaction costs and bankruptcy.

Expected shortfall (ES) is a risk measure—a concept used in the field of financial risk measurement to evaluate the market risk or credit risk of a portfolio. The "expected shortfall at q% level" is the expected return on the portfolio in the worst $of cases. ES is an alternative to value at risk that is more sensitive to the shape of the tail of the loss distribution.$

In economics and finance, exponential utility is a specific form of the utility function, used in some contexts because of its convenience when risk is present, in which case expected utility is maximized. Formally, exponential utility is given by:

Consumption smoothing is the economic concept used to express the desire of people to have a stable path of consumption. People desire to translate their consumption from periods of high income to periods of low income to obtain more stability and predictability. There exists many states of the world, which means there are many possible outcomes that can occur throughout an individual's life. Therefore, to reduce the uncertainty that occurs, people choose to give up some consumption today to prevent against an adverse outcome in the future.

Stochastic control or stochastic optimal control is a sub field of control theory that deals with the existence of uncertainty either in observations or in the noise that drives the evolution of the system. The system designer assumes, in a Bayesian probability-driven fashion, that random noise with known probability distribution affects the evolution and observation of the state variables. Stochastic control aims to design the time path of the controlled variables that performs the desired control task with minimum cost, somehow defined, despite the presence of this noise. The context may be either discrete time or continuous time.

In economics, the isoelastic function for utility, also known as the isoelastic utility function, or power utility function is used to express utility in terms of consumption or some other economic variable that a decision-maker is concerned with. The isoelastic utility function is a special case of hyperbolic absolute risk aversion and at the same time is the only class of utility functions with constant relative risk aversion, which is why it is also called the CRRA utility function.

Elasticity of intertemporal substitution is a measure of responsiveness of the growth rate of consumption to the real interest rate. If the real rate rises, current consumption may decrease due to increased return on savings; but current consumption may also increase as the household decides to consume more immediately, as it is feeling richer. The net effect on current consumption is the elasticity of intertemporal substitution.

In consumer theory, a consumer's preferences are called homothetic if they can be represented by a utility function which is homogeneous of degree 1. For example, in an economy with two goods $, homothetic preferences can be represented by a utility function that has the following property: for every :$

In decision theory, economics, and finance, a two-moment decision model is a model that describes or prescribes the process of making decisions in a context in which the decision-maker is faced with random variables whose realizations cannot be known in advance, and in which choices are made based on knowledge of two moments of those random variables. The two moments are almost always the mean—that is, the expected value, which is the first moment about zero—and the variance, which is the second moment about the mean.

In finance, economics, and decision theory, hyperbolic absolute risk aversion (HARA) refers to a type of risk aversion that is particularly convenient to model mathematically and to obtain empirical predictions from. It refers specifically to a property of von Neumann–Morgenstern utility functions, which are typically functions of final wealth, and which describe a decision-maker's degree of satisfaction with the outcome for wealth. The final outcome for wealth is affected both by random variables and by decisions. Decision-makers are assumed to make their decisions so as to maximize the expected value of the utility function.

In mathematical economics, an isoelastic function, sometimes constant elasticity function, is a function that exhibits a constant elasticity, i.e. has a constant elasticity coefficient. The elasticity is the ratio of the percentage change in the dependent variable to the percentage causative change in the independent variable, in the limit as the changes approach zero in magnitude.

In portfolio theory, a mutual fund separation theorem, mutual fund theorem, or separation theorem is a theorem stating that, under certain conditions, any investor's optimal portfolio can be constructed by holding each of certain mutual funds in appropriate ratios, where the number of mutual funds is smaller than the number of individual assets in the portfolio. Here a mutual fund refers to any specified benchmark portfolio of the available assets. There are two advantages of having a mutual fund theorem. First, if the relevant conditions are met, it may be easier for an investor to purchase a smaller number of mutual funds than to purchase a larger number of assets individually. Second, from a theoretical and empirical standpoint, if it can be assumed that the relevant conditions are indeed satisfied, then implications for the functioning of asset markets can be derived and tested.

In economics and finance, an intertemporal budget constraint is a constraint faced by a decision maker who is making choices for both the present and the future. In its general form it says that the present value of current and future cash outflows cannot exceed the present value of currently available funds and future cash inflows. Typically this is expressed as

References

1 2 Ingersoll, Jonathan E. (1987). Theory of Financial Decision Making . Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0847673596.
↑ Mossin, Jan (1968). "Optimal multiperiod portfolio policies". Journal of Business . 41 (2): 215–229. doi:10.1086/295078. JSTOR 2351447.
↑ Balvers, Ronald J., and Mitchell, Douglas W., "Efficient gradualism in intertemporal portfolios", Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 24, 2000, 21-38.
↑ Balvers, Ronald J., and Mitchell, Douglas W., "Autocorrelated returns and optimal intertemporal portfolio choice", Management Science 43(11), November 1997, pp. 1537-1551.
↑ Merton, Robert C. (1971). "Optimum Consumption and Portfolio Rules in a Continuous-Time Model". Journal of Economic Theory . 3 (4): 373–413. doi:10.1016/0022-0531(71)90038-X. hdl:1721.1/63980. (Chapter I of his Ph.D. dissertation; Chapter 5 in his Continuous-Time Finance).

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[Ingersoll-1] 1 2 Ingersoll, Jonathan E. (1987). Theory of Financial Decision Making . Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0847673596.

[2] Mossin, Jan (1968). "Optimal multiperiod portfolio policies". Journal of Business . 41 (2): 215–229. doi:10.1086/295078. JSTOR 2351447.

[BM-3] Balvers, Ronald J., and Mitchell, Douglas W., "Efficient gradualism in intertemporal portfolios", Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 24, 2000, 21-38.

[4] Balvers, Ronald J., and Mitchell, Douglas W., "Autocorrelated returns and optimal intertemporal portfolio choice", Management Science 43(11), November 1997, pp. 1537-1551.

[5] Merton, Robert C. (1971). "Optimum Consumption and Portfolio Rules in a Continuous-Time Model". Journal of Economic Theory . 3 (4): 373–413. doi:10.1016/0022-0531(71)90038-X. hdl:1721.1/63980. (Chapter I of his Ph.D. dissertation; Chapter 5 in his Continuous-Time Finance).